Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 252 ARK 121 - Martin v. Langley

Martin v. Langley’s Empirical Analysis

1972

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
September 1980
most recently cited

8 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Conley v. State · National Fruit Products Co. v. Garrett · Bethel and Wallace v. State · Gerard B. Lambert Co. v. Newton

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““The record shows that a number of appellee’s records were lost Tn the fire. Appellee gathered up what he could. Immediately preceding the objection above appellee had stated that he did not review his invoices he found but merely turned them over to his lawyer. Admittedly the trial court has wide discretion in determining action appropriate to eliminate prejudicial effects of remarks of counsel and will not be reversed except for a manifest abuse thereof. [Citing case]. From the record here presented, we cannot say that the trial court erred in refusing the motion for mistrial.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.